Just pointing out the absolute absurdity of declaring a space a "gun free zone." You might as well put up a sign in a convenience store that says "No thieves allowed on premise" or "Rapes will not be permitted" at a Occupy something event.

Just pointing out the absolute absurdity of declaring a space a "gun free zone." You might as well put up a sign in a convenience store that says "No thieves allowed on premise" or "Rapes will not be permitted" at a Occupy something event.

--

Think for yourself, question authority.

It's not a complete absurdity, though.

Take universities for example. Declaring them gun-free is not going to stop a mass shooter, that's true. But, it can be seen as a pretty common sense way to separate guns from college kids, because quite a few college kids spend much of their time blasted 8 ways from Sunday. Guns and intoxication don't mix.

Depending on the zone that is gun free, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons other than stopping the stereotypical bad guy with a gun.

One would expect logical reasons for having a 'no guns allowed' or 'gun free zone' signs but are there laws that would backup such signs?

As in, is there a statute out there specifically authorizing premises to establish them? I do not know.

Bear in mind that I private entities get a lot of leeway setting rules for what people can and cannot do on their premises -- no shirt/no service, etc. - though there are of course constitutional limits, ie, a private business open to serve the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race...

I'm not aware of any pending cases attempting to challenge a gun free zone as a violation of the 2nd Amd., though I'd be surprised if there aren't any working their way through the courts. The NRA has gotten increasingly libertarian/far right, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're bankrolling some suits.

It seems, to me, that the 'Brady Bill' crowd would be the ones bankrolling such lawsuits, not the NRA.

The property owner/s would have to enforce their own rules - not the police.

Well, someone would have to bring a gun into a gun free zone, get kicked off, and then file suit for a "declaratory judgment" that the gun free policy violates the individual right to bear arms. This wouldn't be a suit for money damages, so lawyers would want hourly fees - hence the bankrolling remark.